Asylum Policy

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I gently point out to my hon. Friend that we have a large number of failed asylum seekers—that is to say, people whose claims have not succeeded and who do not have the right to be in this country who are still here, despite their home country being safe. Many people who claim asylum in this country have passed through multiple safe countries across Europe before they end up in the north of France. We have seen claims go down in Europe and increase here in the UK. I would just encourage her to remember that we are opening safe and legal routes. The whole point of the reforms is to disincentivise the journeys that lead to criminals earning a lot of money and people being in the north of France, and to move to a system where we have safe legal routes and we accept people as refugees before they set foot on UK soil. That way, when they come here they can earn, contribute and be fully integrated through models such as community sponsorship, which we know work.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I thank the Home Secretary for sharing her experiences earlier and thoroughly condemn the sort of behaviour she described. It is unacceptable in any case.

The Secretary of State described rapid decisions on appeals. Does she also believe, as I do, that rapid decision making on the initial application of asylum seekers should be promoted and highlighted? Will she consider putting a timescale target for decision—a matter of weeks, not years—in place in her Department?

In her remarks over the weekend on our Ukrainians guests, she described them going home when peace breaks out. May I remind her that peace will not mean safety? Please can she assure the House that a more considered and considerate response may be found? Will she meet me and Ukrainian guests to resolve that issue?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me just make a point about Ukraine that I think was not understood fully by those who were questioning me at the weekend. It is a bespoke scheme created only for Ukrainians, with its own rules. It is not subject to what we have set out in the asylum policy statement. The hon. Gentleman will know, as is the position in relation to our discussions with the Ukrainian Government, that those individuals are welcome in our country so that we can keep them safe. They are not classed as refugees, because they are here temporarily on that scheme. We will always uphold our obligations under that scheme—we supported it in Opposition, too.

The hon. Gentleman is right on the point about rapid decisions. It is important that decisions made at first instance, but also through an appeals process, are of high quality. That is one of the ways we have to ensure that they do not get constantly appealed. Our current system means that even though we have made huge progress on decreasing the backlog on initial decisions, the appeals backlog has grown. Over time, as people sit in the appeals queue, more rights are accrued. Unlike with any other type of legal order in this country, the order to leave this country not being complied with still allows people to accrue more rights in the interim. We do not run a good and effective appeals system at the moment, which is why we are going to create a new one, but I can assure him that at its heart will be early legal advice and truly independent adjudicators making the decisions, but doing so in a way that allows them to fast-track claims that have a low chance of success and make sure that the right decision is made quickly— one claim, one appeal—with a certain outcome at the end, not subject to years and years of a merry-go-round around the courts.

Draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 General Committees

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I also congratulate the Minister on her new appointment. I thank her for explaining what is going on in this secondary legislation, because I read it a number of times and did not really get it until I listened to her explanation. It raises a number of questions. The answers may be specified elsewhere; if so, I apologise for asking obvious questions.

On the designation notice that these organisations can now ask for, is there a stipulation on the number of agencies in the list that can come together for a single designation notice with an intelligence agency? Is it just one, is it many or is it all of them?

Is there a duration on the designation notice? Is this something that can be applied for for a week, for a year or forever? Clearly, if it is forever, and all of them, we have a very interesting situation here.

Will the data used in this way be allowed to be analysed in the new Government data-mining AI systems, such as the Palantir systems? There is clearly a danger of leakage into the health systems, in which they are also used. That brings extra concern about crossover of data between those, especially under AI data mining. What reassurances can we give our constituents that that will not happen?

Phone Theft

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for bringing this important debate. I rise to support her and to bring urgent attention to an issue that continues to disrupt lives not just across the UK, but in my constituency: the rising tide of mobile phone thefts.

This is not a petty crime or just about the loss of a device. This is about identity theft, financial vulnerability and, in many cases, the complete disconnection of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities from the services they rely on every day. The numbers for the last two years speak volumes. Between December 2021 and November 2023, West Yorkshire police recorded over 560 mobile phone thefts in Dewsbury and Batley alone—293 in 2021-22 and 269 the following year. On average, more than 20 people in my constituency fall victim to this specific crime every single month, and that is just what is recorded. We know full well the real figures are likely higher. Many do not report these crimes, believing that the police have more serious matters to attend to or that nothing can be done.

As the hon. Member said, mobile phone theft is serious. These are not just communication tools; they are banks, medical records, job applications, childcare arrangements, emergency lifelines and priceless memories. I read about a constituent—a single mother—in Dewsbury Moor whose phone was stolen while shopping. It was not just the phone she lost; she missed three job interviews, could not access her new universal credit account and had her personal photos and private medical records compromised. That is not an isolated story. Mobile phone theft is a systemic threat to digital safety and personal dignity.

Nationally, hundreds of thousands of mobile phones are stolen annually, and many of those devices end up in highly organised criminal supply chains. Some are exported; others are wiped and sold locally. In some cases, victims are followed or even assaulted for their devices. What is worse is that recovery and prosecution rates remain disturbingly low. Across many police forces, less than 5% of mobile phone thefts result in charges.

What must we do? First, we need to treat mobile phone theft as organised crime, not petty theft. The links between phone theft, fraud and even violent crime are well established. Police forces must be resourced and mandated to treat it with the seriousness it deserves. Secondly, we need stronger action from telecom providers and tech companies. Why are some phones still so easy to wipe clean and resell?

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

On that very topic, the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee had an inquiry where we put this to Apple and Google. It turns out that phones that are reported stolen in this country go on something called the GSMA blacklist, which stops the hardware from working and the phones cannot be reused in this country. The police says that most stolen phones go abroad to networks that do not use that blacklist. I put it to Apple and Google that they could use this blacklist. They said yes they could, but no they did not want to. Does the hon. Member agree that these companies should enable that blacklist, which would—in my humble opinion—effectively stop the theft of phones on the streets of London?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I thank the hon. Member for his informed contribution to the debate. I agree with him and the hon. Member for Brent East, who indicated that companies are not doing enough. It should be easy to disable phones so they are beyond use both in this country and abroad, and so the only value they have would be in the spare parts they contain.

We need stronger action from telecoms providers and tech companies. They must put the protection of their customers’ data above profits from their customers having to buy the same or a similar replacement. Why are some phones easy to wipe and resell? Why are tracking systems so easy to disable? The Government must act to force companies to make tracking systems stronger and less easy to disable.

Thirdly, we must support local policing. In Dewsbury and Batley, neighbourhood policing teams are overstretched, trying to deal with phone snatching, shoplifting and antisocial behaviour with limited boots on the ground. They deserve the tools, the people and the political will behind them to make our streets safer.

Finally, we must support victims. Many cannot afford to replace their phone or reclaim their digital identity without support. Let us explore emergency tech funds or digital safety grants for vulnerable individuals and families.

We live in a digital world in which stealing someone’s phone is tantamount to stealing their identity, their access to society and, for some, their only link to help. We must not stand by while our constituents are targeted, their privacy violated and their future interrupted. Let us act not just with concern, but with conviction.